On Aug 30, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> > wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak: > > I believe browsers are targeting 1.1 plus some 1.2T extensions. I > > agree about the reference. Filed > > <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7379>. > > Thanks. I would incidentally be interested to know what 1.2T features > WebKit and Firefox are targetting. > > I'm not aware of Gecko deliberately targeting any 1.2T features. > > I don't want to find ourselves in a marketing-driven race for > complete 1.2T support, since I believe that some 1.2T features are > undesirable for the Web. So I think for the good of the Web we > should have a discussion about what 1.2T features are appropriate > for the Web before we embark on implementing any of them. For WebKit we're not interested in full 1.2T support, and we're quite definitely not interested in XML Events, textArea, or the uDOM (especially Traits). Likely not xml:id either. From time to time, some of the other extensions have been proposed, but I do not recall the details. I could imagine svg:video and svg:audio being reasonable additions. I don't think they are as useful as the HTML versions, but most of the below-the-DOM implementation can be shared, so the cost is low. I don't feel strongly about this though. I agree it would make sense to coordinate on 1.2T features to add. And since the SVG WG has changed in membership and focus since 1.2T was published, we should help future revisions of SVG to be better aligned with the rest of the Web platform. - Maciej
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 02:07:50 UTC